Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 398 F.3d 1025 - Cox v. Burger

Cox v. Burger’s Empirical Analysis

398 F.3d 1025 · 2005

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
August 2014
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 5 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Coleman v. Thompson · Ohio v. Roberts · Schlup v. Delo · Idaho v. Wright

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Herrera [v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 , 113 S.Ct. 853 , 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993),] claims are of a substantive nature (actual innocence), while Schlup [v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 , 115 S.Ct. 851 , 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995),] claims are of a procedural nature (obstacles such as procedural default — also overcome by actual innocence). Cornell v. Nix, 119 F.3d 1329, 1334 (8th Cir.1997). A positive determination under either standard is rare and limited. Herrera, 506 U.S. at 404 , 113 S.Ct. 853 , 122 L.Ed.2d 203 ; Schlup, 513 U.S. at 315 , 115 S.Ct. 851 , 130 L.Ed.2d 808. The burden of proof under Herrera is higher than under Schlup , since exceptions are permitted only for ‘truly persuasive demonstrations of actual innocence.’ Herrera, 506 U.S. at 426-27 , 113 S.Ct. 853 , 122 L.Ed.2d 203 . Under Schlup , Cox must show ‘it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the new evidence.’ Schlup, 513 U.S. at 327 , 115 S.Ct. 851 , 130 L.Ed.2d 808 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(A) the claim relies on— (i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (ii) a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.